Category talk:Collaborators
I searched for a Collaborators category because I thought we might have nationals of occupied countries who had helped their conquerors administer their territories. I figured that would be a good place to look to jog my memory of other potential victims of vigilantism. This is not quite the same thing, is it? Turtle Fan 05:39, May 28, 2010 (UTC) :Not quite six months later: no, it is not quite the same thing. Given the renewed interest in refining categories for occupations, we might consider moving the current articles to "People who Collaborated with Turtledove on a Published Work" (that might be too long), and reserve this category for quislings, or better yet retitle this category "People who Collaborated with the Enemy" (again, that might be too long, but specificity is a good thing, I think.) TR 05:20, November 26, 2010 (UTC) ::How about we call these people Turtledove's Co-Authors, and reserve Collaborators for Quisling and Puyi and Stanley Owana and so on? I think the word "Collaborator" unqualified will call to mind quislings, at least on a wiki full of articles about warfare and geopolitical conflict. Turtle Fan 02:07, November 28, 2010 (UTC) :::I went ahead stuck it under criminals for now, but if anyone can think of a better category, go ahead and move it. TR 17:22, November 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::What about a subcat of Defectors? Or maybe Collaborators and Defectors as two members of a supercategory dealing with occupation? Turtle Fan 19:09, November 28, 2010 (UTC) Following up on Defectors Ok, see my comments in Category Talk:Defectors for the difference between Defectors and Collaborators. And again, we have several in this category whose presence I don't understand. Hirohito, Emperor Showa is problematic. Louis XVI of France makes no sense to me whatsoever. Longstreet we've already discussed. :For Louis XVI, I believe Johnathan is basing it on "found guilty of treason (sending sensitive information to Austria, France's enemy at the time)" from OTL portion of his article. Not very strong. ML4E (talk) 19:17, September 24, 2015 (UTC) ::Yeah, that's thin. TR (talk) 20:03, September 24, 2015 (UTC) :::If so, then it's my understanding that he would only have been a collaborator had Austria actually occupied France at the time. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:17, September 26, 2015 (UTC) Laura Secord Moss is a push--yes, she did rat out the planned uprising, but that was less about making things easy for the U.S. and more about preventing unnecessary bloodshed. She certainly derived no personal benefit. Edna Grimes simply fell in love with a Confederate. That's not by itself an act of collaboration. Wilfred Rokeby didn't collaborate as such either. Mary McGregor Pomeroy put him in the shit to cover her own ass; he just returned the favor. I don't see what Johannes Drucker did to justify the label. :Edna Grimes has the traditional female collaboration of "sleeping with the enemy". It did lead to problems for some French women at the end of WWII for bedding German soldiers. Rokeby I agree although I do recall some story comments (not mentioned in the article) that he retained his postmaster position by collaborating with US authorities. Drucker is here probably for working Anielewicz to find his family. My understanding is that it was an arrangement for mutual benefit although even that would violate Nazi anti-Semitic policy. ML4E (talk) 19:17, September 24, 2015 (UTC) ::I personally find the whole "women who slept with occupiers are collaborators per se" notion to be rather shitty. Occupiers have a tremendous amount of power, and are more than willing to abuse it. That includes unwanted sexual advances on women who are occupied. Such a woman could either 1)submit or 2) face consequences more often than not. If they passed secrets along, that's one thing. But simply providing "stress relief" or companionship is dubious. :::I agree with your assessment here. ML4E (talk) 17:38, September 25, 2015 (UTC) ::::I agree, I find the inclusion of "horizontal collaboration" here extremely distasteful. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:17, September 26, 2015 (UTC) ::Rokeby--I guess I can see that, but minor bureaucrats are often left in place during occupations to prevent disruptions, so again, I'm not sure how fair it is. :::I'd call that week. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:17, September 26, 2015 (UTC) ::Drucker--yeah that's also pretty thin. Drucker did that literally until Anielewicz found his family. Then Drucker was on his own, and he remained loyal to the Reich all along. TR (talk) 20:03, September 24, 2015 (UTC) :::He was assisting Anielewicz in a personal matter. Had it been something related to Anielewicz's position as a commander within (or rather alongside) the Conquest Fleet, that would be another matter. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:17, September 26, 2015 (UTC) We don't know enough about Itzhak Zalman's situation. If Israel fell within his lifetime, then it might be fair. But from what I remember of the story, Israel had fallen quite a few lifetimes before the story's setting. Zalman likely grew up as a citizen of the Arab World, which wouldn't qualify him as a collaborator, the opinion of a nationalist group notwithstanding. :That is my recollection too. ML4E (talk) 19:17, September 24, 2015 (UTC) ::I don't recall much about him at all, so I'll defer to you two. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:17, September 26, 2015 (UTC) The others probably work. TR (talk) 14:00, September 24, 2015 (UTC) :I do think we need to review each individual. For now, it seems to me to be sweeping up people by using a too big net. ML4E (talk) 19:17, September 24, 2015 (UTC) :Oh, yes, the line "Some of these characters were the object of other people's suspicion that they were collaborators, whether this suspicion was true or not" is probably a major source for problems. I think suspicion could be grounds for inclusion but only if the reader doesn't have contradictory information from the story that the characters wouldn't know. That's why I immediately removed Nellie Semphroch from the category. It also makes Yosh Nakayama problematic since we, as readers, know he was only trying to survive along with his community. However, Samuel Little probably should stay based on suspicion. ML4E (talk) 19:26, September 24, 2015 (UTC) :It's also how we wound up with Drucker, here. :I think the line regarding suspicion is ill-advised. It plainly adds to the ambiguity, and seems to be there to pad out the category. TR (talk) 20:03, September 24, 2015 (UTC) ::There is that although some characters I would keep here (e.g. Sammy Little) were not shown to be collaborators but only thought so by other characters. Maybe wording added along the lines of if the reader saw a character wasn't actually a collaborator either via inner monologue or narrative voice, then they shouldn't be included. For Nakayama vs Little there is also the actions of the other characters. Nakayama suffered little injury in the gauntlet so the others didn't find him blameworthy but Little got a beating and so was. ML4E (talk) 17:38, September 25, 2015 (UTC) :::What about removing the language relating to suspicion altogether and only keeping open-and-shut cases? If there's not enough information to make it crystal clear that's what they were, then out they go. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:17, September 26, 2015 (UTC) Candidates for removal from the category Ok, now's as good a time as any to review. I propose the following cuts: Johannes Drucker, Edna Grimes, Hirohito, Emperor Showa, James Longstreet, Nasjonal Samling (as it's a party, not a person), David Nussboym, Wilfred Rokeby, Vanai, Itzhak Zalman, and I could also live if we removed Laura Secord Moss. We should also remove the "suspicion" clause. TR (talk) 18:34, October 10, 2015 (UTC) :Agreed, including Drucker even if I hadn't read Worldwar. However, based on the article alone, David Nussboym seems to be both a Collaborator and Defector. I also agree on the "suspicion" clause. ML4E (talk) 18:53, October 10, 2015 (UTC)